Good analysis today in the Washington Post that cuts through all the rosy scenario nonsense coming from the Bush administration and gives us the cold hard truth about the situation in Iraq.
While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.
I like how no one in the adminstration will level with us on the record, but privately, and off the record, they are letting us know that Bush is full of it.
The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.
Watch out! Here comes some more off the record revelations...
Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.
But,wait! That's according to Sen. Biden, a Democrat. Why should we believe him? Well, there is also the Republican Congressman saying the same thing...
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.
So Rumsfeld and others are "misleading Americans" about the number of Iraqi troops. That's a pretty serious charge and its coming from a Republican.
And here is another Republican with not much good to say when asked to comment on Bush and Cheney's neverending stream of rosy updates...
"I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."
Our military is already strained to the limits and it may take another two years to get things to a point where we can pull out without the Iraqi government collapsing like a house of cards.
If this is not a quagmire, then I don't know what the term could possibly mean.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Friday, June 03, 2005
GOP embraces “terrorist”
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That’s one of the problems with Bush’s “War on Terror,” deciding what terrorism is. The Bush State Department has determined that Yasith Chhun and his group the Cambodian Freedom Fighters is a terrorist organization. In 2000, Chhun took part in an attack on several government buildings in Phnom Penh that injured at least eight government officials. He was recently indicted on federal charges of plotting to overthrow the Cambodian government.
But none of this has dissuaded the National Republican Congressional Committee from embracing Chhun who has raised $6,550 for the GOP and sits on the group’s Business Advisory Council. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher dismisses the State Department’s concerns about Chhun and applauds his efforts to topple the current government in Cambodia.
Gee. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic National Committee invited a known terrorist to sit on its Business Advisory Council?
But none of this has dissuaded the National Republican Congressional Committee from embracing Chhun who has raised $6,550 for the GOP and sits on the group’s Business Advisory Council. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher dismisses the State Department’s concerns about Chhun and applauds his efforts to topple the current government in Cambodia.
Gee. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic National Committee invited a known terrorist to sit on its Business Advisory Council?
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Harmful Books
Note: I am supposed to be guest blogging this week over at The View From The Nest. Unfortunately, after logging in as a guest I've run into some kind of technical hangup where I cannot enter text into the introduction box or main body box in order to compile a post at the site. All I can do is enter text into the headline field which is kind of useless if that's all you can do. I've tried switching browsers from Safari to Internet Explorer with no luck. Could it be a Mac thing? If so, I'll have to wait until later this evening when I can access a PC.
In the meantime, posted below is what would have been my first post at the Nest.
Hello, I’m Mike Thomas and I run the San Antonio-based blog Rhetoric & Rhythm. I’ll be your token liberal guest blogger while Ranten N. Raven is on his sabattical. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Raven for inviting me to participate in this endeavor along with Bill Crawford of All Things Conservative and Christina of Feisty Repartee.
I thought I would kick things off by calling attention to the list of the Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries as determined by a special panel of so called experts put together by the far right-wing magazine Human Events.
Their list starts off predictably enough with the right-wing’s No. 1 boogeyman Karl Marx and his notorious “Communist Manifesto.” I imagine that old Karl must haunt most right-wingers’ dreams like Freddie Krueger. Then we have Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” which would probably make any group’s list regardless of political persuasion, followed by “Quotations from Chairman Mao.”
After that, however, things start to get a little weird. No. 4 on the list is Alfred Kinsey’s Report on Sexual Behavior exposing this group’s obsessive fear of anything dealing with sex. Then we have “Democracy and Education” by the liberal educator and philosopher John Dewey, which they blame for all of our problems with public schools.
Karl Marx is back again at No. 6 with “Das Kapital,” which very few, if any, right-wingers have actually read. But, hey, it’s by Marx so it must be pretty scary!
Betty Friedan’s classic tome “The Feminine Mystique” is bashed for giving women the idea that they could occassionaly come out of the kitchen and put shoes on.
Capping off the Top 10 is “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes, the New Deal era economist whose policies helped bring the country out of the Depression and built up a solid Middle Class that still anchors our society to this day. But the Human Events panel blames Keynes for the nation’s multi-trillion dollar debt, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of that debt was added during the reign of very anti-Keynesian presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
This list of books that were given honorable mentions is also a hoot including:
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill; “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin; “Unsafe at Any Speed” by Ralph Nader; ”Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson;
“Introduction to Psychoanalysis” by Sigmund Freud; and “The Greening of America” by Charles Reich.
I just have to say that this list tells us more about the people that compiled it than anything else. It’s kind of sad really that they would feel threatened by so many books that essentially helped to stretch the bounds of liberty that had constrained so many people both culturally and intellectually throughout human history.
In the meantime, posted below is what would have been my first post at the Nest.
Hello, I’m Mike Thomas and I run the San Antonio-based blog Rhetoric & Rhythm. I’ll be your token liberal guest blogger while Ranten N. Raven is on his sabattical. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Raven for inviting me to participate in this endeavor along with Bill Crawford of All Things Conservative and Christina of Feisty Repartee.
I thought I would kick things off by calling attention to the list of the Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries as determined by a special panel of so called experts put together by the far right-wing magazine Human Events.
Their list starts off predictably enough with the right-wing’s No. 1 boogeyman Karl Marx and his notorious “Communist Manifesto.” I imagine that old Karl must haunt most right-wingers’ dreams like Freddie Krueger. Then we have Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” which would probably make any group’s list regardless of political persuasion, followed by “Quotations from Chairman Mao.”
After that, however, things start to get a little weird. No. 4 on the list is Alfred Kinsey’s Report on Sexual Behavior exposing this group’s obsessive fear of anything dealing with sex. Then we have “Democracy and Education” by the liberal educator and philosopher John Dewey, which they blame for all of our problems with public schools.
Karl Marx is back again at No. 6 with “Das Kapital,” which very few, if any, right-wingers have actually read. But, hey, it’s by Marx so it must be pretty scary!
Betty Friedan’s classic tome “The Feminine Mystique” is bashed for giving women the idea that they could occassionaly come out of the kitchen and put shoes on.
Capping off the Top 10 is “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes, the New Deal era economist whose policies helped bring the country out of the Depression and built up a solid Middle Class that still anchors our society to this day. But the Human Events panel blames Keynes for the nation’s multi-trillion dollar debt, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of that debt was added during the reign of very anti-Keynesian presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
This list of books that were given honorable mentions is also a hoot including:
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill; “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin; “Unsafe at Any Speed” by Ralph Nader; ”Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson;
“Introduction to Psychoanalysis” by Sigmund Freud; and “The Greening of America” by Charles Reich.
I just have to say that this list tells us more about the people that compiled it than anything else. It’s kind of sad really that they would feel threatened by so many books that essentially helped to stretch the bounds of liberty that had constrained so many people both culturally and intellectually throughout human history.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Mark Felt: American Hero
“Follow the money”
So Deep Throat turns out to have been the associate director at the FBI.
It all makes sense now, I suppose. J. Edgar Hoover had his thumb over every U.S. president going back to Calvin Coolidge. But when he died in 1972 Nixon probably thought he was home free and able to do anything he wanted. But then the No. 2 guy at the Bureau, a career G-Man and Hoover protege, steps up and takes him down.
And what is really amazing is that he didn’t do it for money, or fame, or anything else other than that he believed it was the right thing to do for his country.
I’m glad his family pushed him to reveal his secret before he died so that we can salute him before he goes.
So Deep Throat turns out to have been the associate director at the FBI.
It all makes sense now, I suppose. J. Edgar Hoover had his thumb over every U.S. president going back to Calvin Coolidge. But when he died in 1972 Nixon probably thought he was home free and able to do anything he wanted. But then the No. 2 guy at the Bureau, a career G-Man and Hoover protege, steps up and takes him down.
And what is really amazing is that he didn’t do it for money, or fame, or anything else other than that he believed it was the right thing to do for his country.
I’m glad his family pushed him to reveal his secret before he died so that we can salute him before he goes.
Arthur Andersen is dead
Dead as a doornail, as Scrooge might say. And unlike Old Marley in Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol”, it’s not about to come back and start spooking us in the middle of the night. That there was criminal behavior on the part of some Arthur Andersen executives is undeniable. What they did was show blatant disregard for the law in the midst of one of the worst corporate scandals in our nation’s history. The company paid the ultimate price as a result and there is no turning the clock back now.
But did everyone in the whole company deserve to lose their jobs as a result? Certainly not. All the people who worked on the top floor of my building here in San Antonio lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. It didn’t really matter whether criminal charges were ultimately upheld or overturned.
Since the Supreme Court decision was unanimous I would imagine there is not much room for arguing it. They say the jury instructions were flawed so I guess they were. But that doesn’t mean that the former Arthur Andersen executives are vindicated. Rather it is just one more glaring exampe of the gross incompetence of the Bush administration - in this case, the Bush Justice Department.
But did everyone in the whole company deserve to lose their jobs as a result? Certainly not. All the people who worked on the top floor of my building here in San Antonio lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. It didn’t really matter whether criminal charges were ultimately upheld or overturned.
Since the Supreme Court decision was unanimous I would imagine there is not much room for arguing it. They say the jury instructions were flawed so I guess they were. But that doesn’t mean that the former Arthur Andersen executives are vindicated. Rather it is just one more glaring exampe of the gross incompetence of the Bush administration - in this case, the Bush Justice Department.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Olin vs. Soros: A comparison
There was a bit of cheery news for liberals this weekend. The John M. Olin Foundation is closing its doors later this summer.
Why is this good news? Because it has been one of the biggest benefactors for right-wing causes for the past 30 years. Here is how the NYTimes article summarizes the Olin Foundation’s impact on the conservative movement:
Without it, the Federalist Society might not exist, nor its network of 35,000 conservative lawyers. Economic analysis might hold less sway in American courts. The premier idea factories of the right, from the Hoover Institution to the Heritage Foundation, would have lost millions of dollars in core support. And some classics of the conservative canon would have lost their financier, including Allan Bloom's lament of academic decline and Charles Murray's attacks on welfare.
John Olin was a manufacturing magnate who made his fortune selling ammunition to the military during World War II. For that I guess we can laud him. However, before his death he decided to funnel the remainder of his fortune into a foundation to support right-wing causes. The article says he was motivated to do this after armed students took over a building at his alma mater, Cornell University, in 1969.
So thanks to some radical hippies whose idiotic efforts resulted in zero change to the nation’s capitalistic structure, this right-wing millionaire dumped $145 million into his new foundation - which subsequently grew to $380 million thanks in large part to the Clinton Boom years - and was used to fuel the rise of numerous right-wing think tanks and foundations such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute, The Federalist Society, The CATO Institute, The Hoover Institution, etc., etc.
What I find most ironic is that while the right-wing has had this extremely benevolent benefactor for the past 30 years dumping truckloads of money into their pet causes - along with the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Smith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Conn., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, and Joseph Coors in Colorado, and so forth - they still act like whiny little children whenever someone like George Soros comes along and donates a measly $15 million toward liberal causes.
Here is what Soros did
that excited so much venom and hatred from the far right:
(He committed) $3 million over three years to an anti-Bush policy shop headed by ex-Clintonite John Podesta. He followed up with a $10 million grant to launch America Coming Together, a get-out-the-vote effort to help the Democratic presidential campaign. Next he promised $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, (a liberal advocacy group.)
So that is $15.5 million versus $145 million (or $380 million thanks to the Clinton Boom years). And yet if you listen to the rightwingers you might think Soros was dominating the ideological philanthropy efforts to the point that the scale has been sharply tilted to the left. Such is hardly the case.
To be fair, Soros is actually a much more prolific giver than Olin ever was. The difference is that while Olin targeted all of his money towards the narrow focus of promoting right-wing intellectual efforts, Soros has generously opened his wallet to support humanitarian causes as diverse as promoting democracy efforts in Russia to funding affordable housing projects in South Africa.
Just take a look at some of the things that Soros has spent his money on these past years:
$115 million after the fall of the Soviet Union to support Russian science. About $50 million went for stipends to scientists who had lost government support; the aim was to reduce the temptation to use their talents for destructive purposes.
$250 million in 2001 to found and endow Central European University; its main campus is in Budapest, Hungary.
$100 million to free education in the former Soviet Union from Marxist-Leninist dogma by buying new textbooks, training teachers and operating libraries.
$12 million to promote high school debate programs in the USA (1998-present).
$30 million to divide large public high schools in New York City into smaller, more manageable schools.
$13 million (with an additional $37 million commitment) to finance affordable housing and building projects for poor South Africans, most of whom previously lived in shantytowns.
$110 million over the past decade to Step by Step, an early childhood development program in 29 countries.
$200 million to promote peace, tolerance, reconciliation and democracy in southeastern Europe and to strengthen the rule of law and independent news media in that region.
$50 million in 1992 for humanitarian aid to the besieged Bosnian city of Sarajevo, including construction of a municipal water-filtration system and the restoration of electric power to the city's hospitals.
$50 million to the Emma Lazarus Fund to combat unfair treatment of, and discrimination against, legal immigrants in the USA (1996-2000).
$125 million to the After School Corporation for after-school programs (1997-present).
You might think for all this conservatives would be out building monuments to this guy and naming airports after him. Instead, he is vilified by the right because he had the audacity to go up against their Dear Leader, the estimable George W.
Such is the steel-trap closed mind mentality of what passes for conservatism these days.
Why is this good news? Because it has been one of the biggest benefactors for right-wing causes for the past 30 years. Here is how the NYTimes article summarizes the Olin Foundation’s impact on the conservative movement:
Without it, the Federalist Society might not exist, nor its network of 35,000 conservative lawyers. Economic analysis might hold less sway in American courts. The premier idea factories of the right, from the Hoover Institution to the Heritage Foundation, would have lost millions of dollars in core support. And some classics of the conservative canon would have lost their financier, including Allan Bloom's lament of academic decline and Charles Murray's attacks on welfare.
John Olin was a manufacturing magnate who made his fortune selling ammunition to the military during World War II. For that I guess we can laud him. However, before his death he decided to funnel the remainder of his fortune into a foundation to support right-wing causes. The article says he was motivated to do this after armed students took over a building at his alma mater, Cornell University, in 1969.
So thanks to some radical hippies whose idiotic efforts resulted in zero change to the nation’s capitalistic structure, this right-wing millionaire dumped $145 million into his new foundation - which subsequently grew to $380 million thanks in large part to the Clinton Boom years - and was used to fuel the rise of numerous right-wing think tanks and foundations such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute, The Federalist Society, The CATO Institute, The Hoover Institution, etc., etc.
What I find most ironic is that while the right-wing has had this extremely benevolent benefactor for the past 30 years dumping truckloads of money into their pet causes - along with the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Smith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Conn., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, and Joseph Coors in Colorado, and so forth - they still act like whiny little children whenever someone like George Soros comes along and donates a measly $15 million toward liberal causes.
Here is what Soros did
that excited so much venom and hatred from the far right:
(He committed) $3 million over three years to an anti-Bush policy shop headed by ex-Clintonite John Podesta. He followed up with a $10 million grant to launch America Coming Together, a get-out-the-vote effort to help the Democratic presidential campaign. Next he promised $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, (a liberal advocacy group.)
So that is $15.5 million versus $145 million (or $380 million thanks to the Clinton Boom years). And yet if you listen to the rightwingers you might think Soros was dominating the ideological philanthropy efforts to the point that the scale has been sharply tilted to the left. Such is hardly the case.
To be fair, Soros is actually a much more prolific giver than Olin ever was. The difference is that while Olin targeted all of his money towards the narrow focus of promoting right-wing intellectual efforts, Soros has generously opened his wallet to support humanitarian causes as diverse as promoting democracy efforts in Russia to funding affordable housing projects in South Africa.
Just take a look at some of the things that Soros has spent his money on these past years:
$115 million after the fall of the Soviet Union to support Russian science. About $50 million went for stipends to scientists who had lost government support; the aim was to reduce the temptation to use their talents for destructive purposes.
$250 million in 2001 to found and endow Central European University; its main campus is in Budapest, Hungary.
$100 million to free education in the former Soviet Union from Marxist-Leninist dogma by buying new textbooks, training teachers and operating libraries.
$12 million to promote high school debate programs in the USA (1998-present).
$30 million to divide large public high schools in New York City into smaller, more manageable schools.
$13 million (with an additional $37 million commitment) to finance affordable housing and building projects for poor South Africans, most of whom previously lived in shantytowns.
$110 million over the past decade to Step by Step, an early childhood development program in 29 countries.
$200 million to promote peace, tolerance, reconciliation and democracy in southeastern Europe and to strengthen the rule of law and independent news media in that region.
$50 million in 1992 for humanitarian aid to the besieged Bosnian city of Sarajevo, including construction of a municipal water-filtration system and the restoration of electric power to the city's hospitals.
$50 million to the Emma Lazarus Fund to combat unfair treatment of, and discrimination against, legal immigrants in the USA (1996-2000).
$125 million to the After School Corporation for after-school programs (1997-present).
You might think for all this conservatives would be out building monuments to this guy and naming airports after him. Instead, he is vilified by the right because he had the audacity to go up against their Dear Leader, the estimable George W.
Such is the steel-trap closed mind mentality of what passes for conservatism these days.
Down sick
Sorry for the lack of posting.
I’ve been down these last few days with a particularly nasty virus which has still left me with a sore throat and general achiness. I hope to be back up to full speed here very soon.
And yes, I do blame Bush for this.
I’ve been down these last few days with a particularly nasty virus which has still left me with a sore throat and general achiness. I hope to be back up to full speed here very soon.
And yes, I do blame Bush for this.
Friday, May 27, 2005
National Treasure
The Washington Post reports today that the Smithsonian Institution, which houses many of our nation’s most precious artifacts, is in severe need of repair.
A leak at the National Air and Space Museum caused rust on the wing of the first plane to hit Mach 2. Plaster walls are weeping in the Renwick Gallery. Some buildings and exhibits on the Mall and at the National Zoo have closed because of disrepair, and more leaks threaten the Smithsonian's historic collections and irreplaceable objects, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
The cost to fix all of these problems is estimated to be about $2.3 billion over nine years. But we are unlikely to spend that amount of money which is currently 13 times greater than the Smithsonian’s facility budget.
The Smithsonian's repairs-and-maintenance budget for fiscal year 2004 is $184.4 million of its $904 million operating budget for 18 public museums and galleries, 10 science centers, the zoo and other facilities. There are 660 buildings altogether that display, study and safeguard 143.7 million precious objects and specimens and 166.3 million archived documents and photographs.
The GAO report goes on to detail how "structural deterioration" and "chronic leaks" have closed some buildings, restricted access to others and damaged some collections.
Among the casualties are the landmark 1881 Arts and Industries Building on the Mall and the zoo's sloth bear building and birds-of-prey flight cage, which have been shut down pending repairs. The Old Patent Office Building at Seventh and F streets NW, home to the National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum, has been closed since 2000 for revitalization for reroofing, but is scheduled to reopen in July 2006.
Some precious objects have also been damaged. At Air and Space, the pioneering Lilienthal Hang Glider that influenced the Wright Brothers' flight designs has been blemished by a leak, and the Douglas Skyrocket D558, the first airplane to break Mach 2, has some visible rust. As stopgaps, Smithsonian conservators have had to drape plastic sheeting over valuable artifacts.
This is inexusable that Smithonian curators have been reduced to covering our national artifacts with plastic sheeting to keep them from being damaged by leaky roofs and faulty plumbing. So why isn’t the Bush administration doing something about this? Are we really that poor and cash-strapped?
Not when it comes to nation building in Iraq! This year alone the Bush administration is spending $21 billion on reconstruction projects in Iraq of which $3.3 billion has been allocated just for security.
The head of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq said Saturday that as much as 16 percent of the $21 billion reconstruction budget would be spent on providing security for its projects and workers -- roughly double the original estimate...
His office also disclosed that 295 civilian contractors had been killed in Iraq as of April 30...
So remember that the Smithsonian repairs would cost 2.3 billion over nine years - and that is more than we are willing to pay - but we are spending more than $1 billion than that this year alone just on security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.
As one side note, I should also point out that the GAO study concluded that the disrepair at the Smithsonian facilities is not due to neglect or mismanagement, but is instead due to the fact that they have been ”strapped by staffing reductions and a tight budget.”
A leak at the National Air and Space Museum caused rust on the wing of the first plane to hit Mach 2. Plaster walls are weeping in the Renwick Gallery. Some buildings and exhibits on the Mall and at the National Zoo have closed because of disrepair, and more leaks threaten the Smithsonian's historic collections and irreplaceable objects, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
The cost to fix all of these problems is estimated to be about $2.3 billion over nine years. But we are unlikely to spend that amount of money which is currently 13 times greater than the Smithsonian’s facility budget.
The Smithsonian's repairs-and-maintenance budget for fiscal year 2004 is $184.4 million of its $904 million operating budget for 18 public museums and galleries, 10 science centers, the zoo and other facilities. There are 660 buildings altogether that display, study and safeguard 143.7 million precious objects and specimens and 166.3 million archived documents and photographs.
The GAO report goes on to detail how "structural deterioration" and "chronic leaks" have closed some buildings, restricted access to others and damaged some collections.
Among the casualties are the landmark 1881 Arts and Industries Building on the Mall and the zoo's sloth bear building and birds-of-prey flight cage, which have been shut down pending repairs. The Old Patent Office Building at Seventh and F streets NW, home to the National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum, has been closed since 2000 for revitalization for reroofing, but is scheduled to reopen in July 2006.
Some precious objects have also been damaged. At Air and Space, the pioneering Lilienthal Hang Glider that influenced the Wright Brothers' flight designs has been blemished by a leak, and the Douglas Skyrocket D558, the first airplane to break Mach 2, has some visible rust. As stopgaps, Smithsonian conservators have had to drape plastic sheeting over valuable artifacts.
This is inexusable that Smithonian curators have been reduced to covering our national artifacts with plastic sheeting to keep them from being damaged by leaky roofs and faulty plumbing. So why isn’t the Bush administration doing something about this? Are we really that poor and cash-strapped?
Not when it comes to nation building in Iraq! This year alone the Bush administration is spending $21 billion on reconstruction projects in Iraq of which $3.3 billion has been allocated just for security.
The head of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq said Saturday that as much as 16 percent of the $21 billion reconstruction budget would be spent on providing security for its projects and workers -- roughly double the original estimate...
His office also disclosed that 295 civilian contractors had been killed in Iraq as of April 30...
So remember that the Smithsonian repairs would cost 2.3 billion over nine years - and that is more than we are willing to pay - but we are spending more than $1 billion than that this year alone just on security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.
As one side note, I should also point out that the GAO study concluded that the disrepair at the Smithsonian facilities is not due to neglect or mismanagement, but is instead due to the fact that they have been ”strapped by staffing reductions and a tight budget.”
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Bush Oligarchy
Here is an excellent analysis from the Washington Post about how Republicans have been consolidating power in the executive branch in order to push through their radical right agenda.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
Pretty scary, if you ask me. Historians will probably refer to this period as the Bush Oligarchy.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
Pretty scary, if you ask me. Historians will probably refer to this period as the Bush Oligarchy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The filibuster fight in perspective
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, May 23, that I just got around to reading that put the whole judicial filibuster controversy into perspective. The gist of the article is that the extreme political views of Bush’s nominees is not the issue so much as which courts they are going to.
Many of the nation’s circuit courts today are precariously balanced on either a partisan or ideological level. The Bush administration has carefully selected judicial nominees with extremist views and matched them with circuit courts where they could wreak the most havoc. For example, Janice Rogers Brown, who likes to compare the government’s regulatory authority to slavery, is poised to take a seat on the D.C. Circuit court that handles the majority of appeals of government agency rulings.
Then there is William Myers, a long-time lobbyist for cattlemen and mining interests who has a long history of attacking environmental groups who is nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit which deals with most land-use cases.
And William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who thinks the Voting Rights Act needs to be overhauled and gutted, is nominated for a seat on the 11th Circuit court which has jurisdiction over a large portion of the south.
But why shouldn’t Bush be allowed to tip the balance on these courts? After all, he won the election so he should be allowed to do what he wants, right? Well, yes and no. That brings us to the final point of the article and the one that sticks the deepest in the craw of the Democrats. Many of these court vacancies that Bush is trying to fill first became vacant during the Clinton administration. Yes, that’s right. They should currently be filled with Clinton appointees, but Republicans used Senate rules to block Clinton’s nominees and then once Bush came into office they changed the rules so that Democrats couldn’t do the same thing and now they are trying to push through hard right nominees to fill seats that by all rights should have gone to Democratic appointees. And remember that Republicans have controlled the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, so they have had ample opportunity to get their own nominees in place making it all the more unfair for them to be stealing away Democratic spots.
Many of the nation’s circuit courts today are precariously balanced on either a partisan or ideological level. The Bush administration has carefully selected judicial nominees with extremist views and matched them with circuit courts where they could wreak the most havoc. For example, Janice Rogers Brown, who likes to compare the government’s regulatory authority to slavery, is poised to take a seat on the D.C. Circuit court that handles the majority of appeals of government agency rulings.
Then there is William Myers, a long-time lobbyist for cattlemen and mining interests who has a long history of attacking environmental groups who is nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit which deals with most land-use cases.
And William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who thinks the Voting Rights Act needs to be overhauled and gutted, is nominated for a seat on the 11th Circuit court which has jurisdiction over a large portion of the south.
But why shouldn’t Bush be allowed to tip the balance on these courts? After all, he won the election so he should be allowed to do what he wants, right? Well, yes and no. That brings us to the final point of the article and the one that sticks the deepest in the craw of the Democrats. Many of these court vacancies that Bush is trying to fill first became vacant during the Clinton administration. Yes, that’s right. They should currently be filled with Clinton appointees, but Republicans used Senate rules to block Clinton’s nominees and then once Bush came into office they changed the rules so that Democrats couldn’t do the same thing and now they are trying to push through hard right nominees to fill seats that by all rights should have gone to Democratic appointees. And remember that Republicans have controlled the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, so they have had ample opportunity to get their own nominees in place making it all the more unfair for them to be stealing away Democratic spots.
Our fundamentalist president
There is a picture of President Bush on the front page of the New York Times today kissing a baby. The carefully staged photo-op was done to support Bush’s plan to veto bi-partisan legislation that would lift some restrictions on scientific research into embryonic stem cells. The baby in the picture is one that came from a donated embryo left over from a fertility clinic.
I think it is wonderful that some family was able to have a baby using a donated embryo. But we also need to consider that there are far more of these excess embryos left over from fertility treatments than can be used and about 90 percent of them are discarded on a routine basis.
The bill that Bush is threatening to veto would allow scientists to study these embryos that are going to be discarded anyway in hopes of finding cures for certain diseases. Why is this such a problem for religious fundamentalists? You have something sitting in a petri dish that could possibly be used to save countless lives and improve the quality of life for many more people and yet we are just going to continue to toss them into the trash bin because a small group of fundamentalists - including our president - believe as GOP Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that "an embryo is a person.” That’s like saying an acorn is a tree. If you sweep up a bunch of acorns off your driveway and throw them in the trash, is that the equivalent of going out with a chainsaw and chopping down several acres of Live Oak trees?
So let’s be perfectly clear here. While President Bush may seem like he cares about “life” because he is kissing that baby, the truth is that he cares more about the contents of a petri dish than about the millions of people out there suffering from debilitating diseases and genetic conditions. Notice how they were careful not to show Bush standing next to any children suffering from multiple sclerosis or spinal bifida.
I think it is wonderful that some family was able to have a baby using a donated embryo. But we also need to consider that there are far more of these excess embryos left over from fertility treatments than can be used and about 90 percent of them are discarded on a routine basis.
The bill that Bush is threatening to veto would allow scientists to study these embryos that are going to be discarded anyway in hopes of finding cures for certain diseases. Why is this such a problem for religious fundamentalists? You have something sitting in a petri dish that could possibly be used to save countless lives and improve the quality of life for many more people and yet we are just going to continue to toss them into the trash bin because a small group of fundamentalists - including our president - believe as GOP Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that "an embryo is a person.” That’s like saying an acorn is a tree. If you sweep up a bunch of acorns off your driveway and throw them in the trash, is that the equivalent of going out with a chainsaw and chopping down several acres of Live Oak trees?
So let’s be perfectly clear here. While President Bush may seem like he cares about “life” because he is kissing that baby, the truth is that he cares more about the contents of a petri dish than about the millions of people out there suffering from debilitating diseases and genetic conditions. Notice how they were careful not to show Bush standing next to any children suffering from multiple sclerosis or spinal bifida.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Filibuster compromise
Ahhhh, the sweet smell of compromise! It’s what makes our form of government work. Without it we would find ourselves constantly bogged down in these kinds of partisan fights. The reason we have had so many during these past four years is because President Bush has been one of the most obnoxiously partisan presidents in recent memory and has refused to compromise at almost every turn. In this case, however, it was up to the Senate to strike a deal and that is what they do best.
So this means we will likely wind up with three more awful judges on the federal bench (although there is still a chance that one or more could be voted down), but the rest will be stopped dead in their tracks and the filibuster rule remains intact. This is good because requiring a 60-vote supermajority in some cases forces the administration to nominate judges who can meet that higher standard of acceptability on all sides. Thus we end up with fewer extremist judges on the left or right in the long run.
So this means we will likely wind up with three more awful judges on the federal bench (although there is still a chance that one or more could be voted down), but the rest will be stopped dead in their tracks and the filibuster rule remains intact. This is good because requiring a 60-vote supermajority in some cases forces the administration to nominate judges who can meet that higher standard of acceptability on all sides. Thus we end up with fewer extremist judges on the left or right in the long run.
Monday, May 23, 2005
All-Time 100 Movies
Time Magazine’s movie critics are coming out with their ALL-TIME 100 Movies this week. Their list is filled with obscure foreign films I’ve never seen and probably never will.
A better effort, in my opinion, is the American Film Institute’s 100 YEARS...100 MOVIES series.
Following is my personal list of the All-Time 100 Movies based on my obviously limited exposure to mostly American-made films of the past 40 years.
My only criteria for including movies on the list was that I have actually seen them in their entirety and if they were to come on TV right now the liklihood that I would drop whatever I was doing and watch them again.
Abyss, The
Adventures of Robin Hood
African Queen, The
Aladdin
Amadeus
Annie Hall
Apollo 13
Arsenic and Old Lace
Arthur
Author, Author
Back to the Future
Batman
Ben-Hur
Beverly Hills Cop
Birds, The
Blazing Saddles
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Casablanca
Chariots of Fire
Citizen Kane
Conan the Barbarian
Cool Hand Luke
Court Jester, The
Dirty Dozen, The
Dirty Harry
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
Emperor’s New Groove, The
Fish Called Wanda, A
French Connection, The
Fugitive, The
General, The
Ghost
Ghostbusters
Godfather, The I & II
Gold Rush, The
Gone With the Wind
Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The
Graduate, The
Grease
Great Escape, The
Groundhog Day
Hard Day’s Night, A
Harry Potter series
High Noon
It’s a Wonderful Life
James Bond series
Jerry Maguire
JFK
Jurassic Park
Karate Kid, The
King and I, The
Koyaanisqatsi
LA Confidential
Lawrence of Arabia
Lethal Weapon
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Maltese Falcon, The
Mary Poppins
MASH
Matrix, The
Men in Black
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Notting Hill
Philadelphia Story, The
Pirates of the Caribbean
Planet of the Apes
Platoon
Poltergeist
Princess Bride, The
Pulp Fiction
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Road to Morocco (and Singapore, Utopia, Rio, Zanzibar, etc.)
Road Warrior, The
Searchers, The
Silverado
Singin’ In the Rain
Some Like it Hot
Sound of Music, The
Spiderman I and II
Stagecoach
Star Trek series
Star Wars trilogy
Take the Money and Run
Taxi Driver
Ten Commandments, The
Terminator I & II
This is Spinal Tap
Time Bandits
To Kill a Mockingbird
Total Recall
Toy Story I & II
True Grit
Unforgiven
Vertigo
Westworld
What’s Up, Doc?
Witness
Wizard of Oz
Working Girl
Update:
Because 100 is such an arbitrary number, here are a few more movies that would make my All-Time Best list.
The Sting
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Braveheart
Little Big Man
True Lies
Godzilla (the original)
Monster's Inc.
Giant
Guys and Dolls
The Quiet Man
Seabiscuit
2001 A Space Odyssey
Die Hard
The Breakfast Club
Apocalypse Now
Going My Way
An American in Paris
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Pink Panther series
Oh God!
Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness
Contact
Bowfinger
Omega Man
Crimson Tide
A better effort, in my opinion, is the American Film Institute’s 100 YEARS...100 MOVIES series.
Following is my personal list of the All-Time 100 Movies based on my obviously limited exposure to mostly American-made films of the past 40 years.
My only criteria for including movies on the list was that I have actually seen them in their entirety and if they were to come on TV right now the liklihood that I would drop whatever I was doing and watch them again.
Abyss, The
Adventures of Robin Hood
African Queen, The
Aladdin
Amadeus
Annie Hall
Apollo 13
Arsenic and Old Lace
Arthur
Author, Author
Back to the Future
Batman
Ben-Hur
Beverly Hills Cop
Birds, The
Blazing Saddles
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Casablanca
Chariots of Fire
Citizen Kane
Conan the Barbarian
Cool Hand Luke
Court Jester, The
Dirty Dozen, The
Dirty Harry
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
Emperor’s New Groove, The
Fish Called Wanda, A
French Connection, The
Fugitive, The
General, The
Ghost
Ghostbusters
Godfather, The I & II
Gold Rush, The
Gone With the Wind
Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The
Graduate, The
Grease
Great Escape, The
Groundhog Day
Hard Day’s Night, A
Harry Potter series
High Noon
It’s a Wonderful Life
James Bond series
Jerry Maguire
JFK
Jurassic Park
Karate Kid, The
King and I, The
Koyaanisqatsi
LA Confidential
Lawrence of Arabia
Lethal Weapon
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Maltese Falcon, The
Mary Poppins
MASH
Matrix, The
Men in Black
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Notting Hill
Philadelphia Story, The
Pirates of the Caribbean
Planet of the Apes
Platoon
Poltergeist
Princess Bride, The
Pulp Fiction
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Road to Morocco (and Singapore, Utopia, Rio, Zanzibar, etc.)
Road Warrior, The
Searchers, The
Silverado
Singin’ In the Rain
Some Like it Hot
Sound of Music, The
Spiderman I and II
Stagecoach
Star Trek series
Star Wars trilogy
Take the Money and Run
Taxi Driver
Ten Commandments, The
Terminator I & II
This is Spinal Tap
Time Bandits
To Kill a Mockingbird
Total Recall
Toy Story I & II
True Grit
Unforgiven
Vertigo
Westworld
What’s Up, Doc?
Witness
Wizard of Oz
Working Girl
Update:
Because 100 is such an arbitrary number, here are a few more movies that would make my All-Time Best list.
The Sting
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Braveheart
Little Big Man
True Lies
Godzilla (the original)
Monster's Inc.
Giant
Guys and Dolls
The Quiet Man
Seabiscuit
2001 A Space Odyssey
Die Hard
The Breakfast Club
Apocalypse Now
Going My Way
An American in Paris
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Pink Panther series
Oh God!
Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness
Contact
Bowfinger
Omega Man
Crimson Tide
A biased and misleading headline
After reading the New York Times report of the brutal treatment of two Afghan detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in late 2002, I was curious to see how the story would be played in the local paper. Some local critics of the paper would have you believe that such a story would get major coverage in order to shed a poor light on the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
But what we got instead was a severely truncated AP story (here is a slightly fuller version from another paper) buried on page 4A of Saturday's paper that gives only the barest details of the story surrounded by official pronouncements from military and White House spokesmen saying that such mistreatment of prisoners is never tolerated.
And whoever put this story in the local paper gave it one of the most outrageously misleading and biased headlines I think I have ever seen:
Military bristles at newspaper's abuse report:
New York Times tale alleges prisoners repeatedly were abused
So from this headline you first get the impression that the military is denying the published reports - which they are not since the report is simply relaying information from the military's own investigation of the event. Next, it gives the impression that the story is based on an investigation by the New York Times and not the military itself - which is clearly untrue. And to top it off, it tries to make the reader think the abuses may not really have happened - it is a "tale" by the NYTimes that "alleges" that there was abuse.
The story itslelf was also conveniently edited in the local paper so that someone reading only this version would not even learn that the taxi driver who was abused died as a result of his mistreatment or that his interrogators believed that he was innocent.
The paper would have done better to just close its eyes and ignore this story than to run something as shamelessly misleading and inaccurate as this piece.
Whoever edited this story and wrote that headline clearly has an agenda to push. That should make some of the paper's noisiest critics very happy. It means they are staring to win their battle to turn the local media into a propaganda mill that does little more than churn out fluff pieces that have been officially approved by the Bush administration.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the harsh criticism leveled at the media as a result of the sloppy Newsweek story on Koran desecration, but it is a major disservice to the readers.
But what we got instead was a severely truncated AP story (here is a slightly fuller version from another paper) buried on page 4A of Saturday's paper that gives only the barest details of the story surrounded by official pronouncements from military and White House spokesmen saying that such mistreatment of prisoners is never tolerated.
And whoever put this story in the local paper gave it one of the most outrageously misleading and biased headlines I think I have ever seen:
Military bristles at newspaper's abuse report:
New York Times tale alleges prisoners repeatedly were abused
So from this headline you first get the impression that the military is denying the published reports - which they are not since the report is simply relaying information from the military's own investigation of the event. Next, it gives the impression that the story is based on an investigation by the New York Times and not the military itself - which is clearly untrue. And to top it off, it tries to make the reader think the abuses may not really have happened - it is a "tale" by the NYTimes that "alleges" that there was abuse.
The story itslelf was also conveniently edited in the local paper so that someone reading only this version would not even learn that the taxi driver who was abused died as a result of his mistreatment or that his interrogators believed that he was innocent.
The paper would have done better to just close its eyes and ignore this story than to run something as shamelessly misleading and inaccurate as this piece.
Whoever edited this story and wrote that headline clearly has an agenda to push. That should make some of the paper's noisiest critics very happy. It means they are staring to win their battle to turn the local media into a propaganda mill that does little more than churn out fluff pieces that have been officially approved by the Bush administration.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the harsh criticism leveled at the media as a result of the sloppy Newsweek story on Koran desecration, but it is a major disservice to the readers.
Friday, May 20, 2005
We’re supposed to be the good guys
The New York Times has a report today based on a 2,000 page Army investigative report on prisoner abuses at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan back in late 2002.
The picture it paints is truly horrific and brings to mind images of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and Vietnamese POW camps. Here is an excerpt:
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
When I hear about radical Islamists taking innocent people hostage and cutting their heads off on video I console myself in the thought that we are morally superior to that and would never stoop to such grusome and barbaric behavior. But then I read something like this and I have to wonder if we really deserve to consider ourselves morally superior.
The good news here is that the Army did conduct an investigation and seven people have been charged with abusing prisoners in this case. Does that mean everything is fine now and there are no more problems? I don’t know. I don’t understand how something like this could have happened in the first place. Why didn’t anybody stop it when it was happening? Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys here? Did 9/11 somehow give us the right to go around the world torturing people? Nobody deserves this kind of treatment ever, not even Osama bin Laden himself. It is morally repugnant and should be beneath us as a civilized nation.
The story goes on to say that many of the interrogators who were responsible for these atrocities went on later to work their craft at Abu Gharib. It seems incredible that we are having an argument about Koran desecration these past few days, as if the guards and interrogators involved in these crimes would have thought twice about it.
I know that many people will object to this story because it makes our military look bad and hurts morale. They may even deny the reports like they did with the Abu Gharib abuses - up until the point where those infamous pictures surfaced. But I think it is important that we be made fully aware of what happened. We need to have our collective noses rubbed in this or surely it will happen again and again. This wasn’t just a case of a few bad apples. It could have happened with anybody in that position and that is the scariest part. We lost part of our souls after 9/11 and we desperately need to regain it. You don’t get it back by seeking vengeance - this is what the radical Islamists preach. You get it back by taking the other route toward forgiveness and mercy.
The picture it paints is truly horrific and brings to mind images of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and Vietnamese POW camps. Here is an excerpt:
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
When I hear about radical Islamists taking innocent people hostage and cutting their heads off on video I console myself in the thought that we are morally superior to that and would never stoop to such grusome and barbaric behavior. But then I read something like this and I have to wonder if we really deserve to consider ourselves morally superior.
The good news here is that the Army did conduct an investigation and seven people have been charged with abusing prisoners in this case. Does that mean everything is fine now and there are no more problems? I don’t know. I don’t understand how something like this could have happened in the first place. Why didn’t anybody stop it when it was happening? Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys here? Did 9/11 somehow give us the right to go around the world torturing people? Nobody deserves this kind of treatment ever, not even Osama bin Laden himself. It is morally repugnant and should be beneath us as a civilized nation.
The story goes on to say that many of the interrogators who were responsible for these atrocities went on later to work their craft at Abu Gharib. It seems incredible that we are having an argument about Koran desecration these past few days, as if the guards and interrogators involved in these crimes would have thought twice about it.
I know that many people will object to this story because it makes our military look bad and hurts morale. They may even deny the reports like they did with the Abu Gharib abuses - up until the point where those infamous pictures surfaced. But I think it is important that we be made fully aware of what happened. We need to have our collective noses rubbed in this or surely it will happen again and again. This wasn’t just a case of a few bad apples. It could have happened with anybody in that position and that is the scariest part. We lost part of our souls after 9/11 and we desperately need to regain it. You don’t get it back by seeking vengeance - this is what the radical Islamists preach. You get it back by taking the other route toward forgiveness and mercy.
Lions and Tigers and ...
My friend Robert at Beginner's Mind had an interesting visitor the other night.
It seems a hungry bear wandered up to his back porch (he lives in Vermont) and started snacking on his bird feeders.
I think he needs to just break down and put out a couple of bear feeders.
It seems a hungry bear wandered up to his back porch (he lives in Vermont) and started snacking on his bird feeders.
I think he needs to just break down and put out a couple of bear feeders.
There goes the neighborhood...
My friend Alamo City Commando has launched a new local blog called All Things Conservative where he promises to discuss all the hot topics of the day and foster intelligent debate between the left and the right. I'm sure the name is meant to be a nice homage to the best news program on the radio.
Commando has also taken this occasion to reveal his true identity! Check it out!
Commando has also taken this occasion to reveal his true identity! Check it out!
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Rules are for suckers
The Republican hegemony in Washington depends on bending, breaking and ignoring rules that have bound our democracy together these many years.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a prime example of someone who sees rules as being non-binding when it comes to asserting his own authority.
Now the Republicans in the Senate are preparing to break the rules there in order to give President Bush an unprecedented 100 percent approval of all his judicial nominees. I mean, why settle for just 95 percent when you can break the rules and get whatever you want?
This article from the Christian Science Monitor explains the rules that will be broken if the Republicans pull the trigger on their “nuclear option.”
The debate revolves around three related provisions: the Constitution's advice and consent clause, the congressional rules clause, and Senate Rule V.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in part that the president shall have the power to nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate.
While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.
That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm a judge, which has been the historic practice. But some legal analysts say that nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from setting a higher standard.
The Constitution also says in Article I, Section 5: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings." Senate rules permit members to engage in filibusters to stall judicial confirmation votes. Under Senate Rule XXII, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a nominee, it takes at least 60 votes to end a filibuster. In addition, the rule says any attempt to change a Senate rule requires the support of two-thirds of the senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all 100 senators are participating).
It is those higher vote requirements that are the intended target of the nuclear option. Under that option, the Republicans would use a majority vote (rather than 67 votes) to change the filibuster rule from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would implicate Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate's rules shall continue from one Senate to the next "unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Republicans say the combination of Rule V and open-ended Democratic filibusters of judges can result in unconstitutional entrenchment, rendering Rule V invalid. This is why some Republicans are calling it the "constitutional option." Democrats say the rules are clear and fair, and should not be unilaterally changed in the middle of a heated dispute.
So, summing up. The Republicans will disregard Senate Rule XXII and Rule V in order to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote because they think that anything less than 100 percent approval of all Bush judicial nominees is somehow unconstitutional.
But the real truth is that they just don’t think rules should ever apply to them.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a prime example of someone who sees rules as being non-binding when it comes to asserting his own authority.
Now the Republicans in the Senate are preparing to break the rules there in order to give President Bush an unprecedented 100 percent approval of all his judicial nominees. I mean, why settle for just 95 percent when you can break the rules and get whatever you want?
This article from the Christian Science Monitor explains the rules that will be broken if the Republicans pull the trigger on their “nuclear option.”
The debate revolves around three related provisions: the Constitution's advice and consent clause, the congressional rules clause, and Senate Rule V.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in part that the president shall have the power to nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate.
While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.
That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm a judge, which has been the historic practice. But some legal analysts say that nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from setting a higher standard.
The Constitution also says in Article I, Section 5: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings." Senate rules permit members to engage in filibusters to stall judicial confirmation votes. Under Senate Rule XXII, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a nominee, it takes at least 60 votes to end a filibuster. In addition, the rule says any attempt to change a Senate rule requires the support of two-thirds of the senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all 100 senators are participating).
It is those higher vote requirements that are the intended target of the nuclear option. Under that option, the Republicans would use a majority vote (rather than 67 votes) to change the filibuster rule from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would implicate Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate's rules shall continue from one Senate to the next "unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Republicans say the combination of Rule V and open-ended Democratic filibusters of judges can result in unconstitutional entrenchment, rendering Rule V invalid. This is why some Republicans are calling it the "constitutional option." Democrats say the rules are clear and fair, and should not be unilaterally changed in the middle of a heated dispute.
So, summing up. The Republicans will disregard Senate Rule XXII and Rule V in order to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote because they think that anything less than 100 percent approval of all Bush judicial nominees is somehow unconstitutional.
But the real truth is that they just don’t think rules should ever apply to them.
A sobering new assessment in Iraq
The only gauge that matters in determining how well things are going in Iraq is the one that will determine when we can bring our troops back home. Right now it is not looking so good.
American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.
In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting.
American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.
In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Canceling Amy
CBS’ decision to cancel “Judging Amy” and “Joan of Arcadia” leaves me with just two shows that I watch regularly - “ER” and “Lost.”
A little over a year ago my viewing schedule looked like this:
Monday: None
Tuesday: Frasier; Judging Amy
Wednesday: Star Trek: Enterprise
Thursday: Friends; ER
Friday: Joan of Arcadia
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Now all of those shows are defunct with the exception of “ER” which is probably in its next to last season.
Since then I’ve become a devoted fan of “Lost” and I may watch the “Friends” spinoff “Joey” on occasion, but not much else has changed.
The only new show I’ve heard about that I’m likely to check out next season is the new “Kolchak” series on ABC but I won’t have high hopes for it. I loved the old Kolchak: The Night Stalker series when I was a kid. It was a precursor to X-Files and starred an ink-stained wretch of a reporter who was always in trouble with his editors and the police. I imagine for the new series they will update the character to be a TV news reporter since that is the only kind people are familiar with anymore. But I will reserve judgment until I see it.
As for “Judging Amy,” at least this season is on an arc that could make for a good end to the series. They have had some story lines lately that have been irritating like having Amy dump her latest boyfriend (again) after suffering a miscarriage. Amy is currently considering leaving the bench to pursue a U.S. Senate seat. Maybe after the series is cancelled she can make guest appearances on “West Wing.” Also, they may finally let Amy’s mom, played by Tyne Daly, be happy for once and let her get married to the gardener played by Cheech Marin. I really like the characters that Cheech has been playing recently on this show and the old “Nash Bridges” show that I used to watch.
A little over a year ago my viewing schedule looked like this:
Monday: None
Tuesday: Frasier; Judging Amy
Wednesday: Star Trek: Enterprise
Thursday: Friends; ER
Friday: Joan of Arcadia
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Now all of those shows are defunct with the exception of “ER” which is probably in its next to last season.
Since then I’ve become a devoted fan of “Lost” and I may watch the “Friends” spinoff “Joey” on occasion, but not much else has changed.
The only new show I’ve heard about that I’m likely to check out next season is the new “Kolchak” series on ABC but I won’t have high hopes for it. I loved the old Kolchak: The Night Stalker series when I was a kid. It was a precursor to X-Files and starred an ink-stained wretch of a reporter who was always in trouble with his editors and the police. I imagine for the new series they will update the character to be a TV news reporter since that is the only kind people are familiar with anymore. But I will reserve judgment until I see it.
As for “Judging Amy,” at least this season is on an arc that could make for a good end to the series. They have had some story lines lately that have been irritating like having Amy dump her latest boyfriend (again) after suffering a miscarriage. Amy is currently considering leaving the bench to pursue a U.S. Senate seat. Maybe after the series is cancelled she can make guest appearances on “West Wing.” Also, they may finally let Amy’s mom, played by Tyne Daly, be happy for once and let her get married to the gardener played by Cheech Marin. I really like the characters that Cheech has been playing recently on this show and the old “Nash Bridges” show that I used to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)